초록 ▼

An approach for monitoring energy consumption and detecting preventive maintenance issues in a system having control loops and associated devices. Settling time and error value in a control loop may be indicative of the loop's efficiency. Error value may be a difference between a measurement of a pa

An approach for monitoring energy consumption and detecting preventive maintenance issues in a system having control loops and associated devices. Settling time and error value in a control loop may be indicative of the loop's efficiency. Error value may be a difference between a measurement of a parameter and a setpoint for the parameter. Degradation of a loop's efficiency may be an indication of increased energy consumption by the system. Such degradation may also be indicative of a future defect in a control loop or devices associated with the control loop. Thus, the present approach may provide for energy monitoring and preventive maintenance of the system.

대표청구항 ▼

1. An approach for controller evaluation comprising: providing a controller having one or more controller loops;operating the one or more controller loops;measuring settling times of the one or more control loops; monitoring error values of the one or more control loops; and determining control loop

1. An approach for controller evaluation comprising: providing a controller having one or more controller loops;operating the one or more controller loops;measuring settling times of the one or more control loops; monitoring error values of the one or more control loops; and determining control loop efficiencies of the one or more control loops from the settling times and error values, respectively; andwherein the settling times are times it takes the one or more control loops to reach a prescribed amount of a setpoint value. 2. The approach of claim 1, further comprising tracking energy consumption from a control loop efficiency. 3. The approach of claim 2, wherein an increase of energy consumption implies a potential defect in the one or more control loops. 4. The approach of claim 2, wherein tracking energy consumption is a basis for meeting LEEDS certification requirements. 5. The approach of claim 3, wherein a potential defect in one or more control loops is a basis for rectifying issues in one or more control loops or in one or more devices subject to the one or more control loops. 6. The approach of claim 1, wherein control loop efficiencies of the one or more control loops are determined from control loop performance indexing. 7. The approach of claim 6, wherein control loop performance indexing comprises: identifying each control loop of the one or more control loops;collecting samples of an actual value in each of the one or more control loops at one sample per unit time;calculating a control loop performance index for each of the one or more control loops from the samples;identifying one or more performance indices which have degraded; andchecking devices for performance degradation, of the one or more control loops having a performance index which has degraded is an indication of potential performance degradation for field devices connected to the respective one or more control loops. 8. The approach of claim 7, wherein the control loop performance indexing further comprises repeating one or more times as desired the following: collecting samples of an actual value in each of the one or more control loops;calculating a control loop performance index for each of the one or more control loops from the samples;identifying one or more of the performance indices which have degraded; andchecking devices for performance degradation, of the one or more control loops which have degraded. 9. The approach of claim 6, wherein control loop performance indexing is determined from formulas comprising: Di=∑(xi-Setpointi)2N;andPIi=1-(Di1-(σ⁡(Setpoint)μ⁡(Setpoint)));andwherein: Di is a deviation of an ith sample from the setpoint value;xi is an actual value of an ith sample;Setpointi is a setpoint value of an ith sample;PIi is a performance index of an ith sample;N is a number of samples;μ is a mean; andσ is a standard deviation. 10. The approach of claim 1, wherein: the one or more controller loops are at least a portion of a controller; anda controller performance index is determined from formulas comprising: DC=∑(DCLi-100)2N⁢⁢andPIC=1-(DC);andwherein: Dc is a controller deviation;DCLi is a deviation in an ith control loop;PIC is a controller performance index;N is a number of control loops; anda deviation is a difference between a setpoint value and an actual value. 11. A system having self evaluation comprising: a set of one or more field controllers;one or more devices connected to at least one of the one or more field controllers;a central station; andone or more building controllers connected to the central station; andwherein: at least one of the one or more field controllers comprises at least one control loop connected to the at least one or more devices;each control loop has a performance index; andthe performance index is determined from an actual value and a setpoint value of a parameter controlled by a control loop;the one or more field controllers are connected to one of the one or more building controllers;the central station determines and monitors the performance index of the one or more field controllers; andthe central station provides suggestions as needed to a user of the system based on a performance index of a control loop. 12. The system of claim 11, wherein the central station further provides information of energy compliance and/or preventative maintenance service based on a performance index of a control loop. 13. The system of claim 11, wherein: the central station monitors the setpoint and actual values; andthe central station and the one or more building controllers are connected by an interne or any networking medium. 14. The system of claim 12, wherein: the performance index of a control loop is indicated by a settling time and error value of the control loop;performance degradation due to aging increases settling time and in turn increases energy consumption for a given error value; andenergy consumption is monitored via monitoring the settling time and error value by the central station. 15. A method for monitoring a condition of a building controller, comprising: monitoring a condition of one or more control loops of a building controller; andwherein monitoring a condition of a control loop comprises:identifying each control loop in the building controller;collecting samples of an actual value in each control loop at a per unit time rate;calculating a control loop performance index from the samples for each control loop at periodic intervals; andidentifying each control loop having a decreased loop performance index. 16. The method of claim 15, wherein if a control loop has a decreased loop performance index, then one or more devices connected in the control loop are examined for degradation. 17. The method of claim 15 wherein: a control loop performance index is determined by a settling time and an error value of a control loop; andthe error value is a difference between an actual value and a setpoint value. 18. The method of claim 15, wherein a performance index of the building controller is a standard deviation of loop performance indices of the entire one or more control loops of the building controller where the mean is 100. 19. An approach for controller evaluation comprising: providing a controller having one or more controller loops;operating the one or more controller loops;measuring settling times of the one or more control loops; monitoring error values of the one or more control loops; determining control loop efficiencies of the one or more control loops from the settling times and error values, respectively;wherein control loop efficiencies of the one or more control loops are determined from control loop performance indexing comprising: identifying each control loop of the one or more control loops;collecting samples of an actual value in each of the one or more control loops at one sample per unit time;calculating a control loop performance index for each of the one or more control loops from the samples;identifying one or more performance indices which have degraded; andchecking devices for performance degradation, of the one or more control loops having a performance index which has degraded is an indication of potential performance degradation for field devices connected to the respective one or more control loops.